Carpenters District Council of New Orleans

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 49 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF. NEW-ORLEANS 49
The Carpenters District Council , of New Orleans and
Vicinity and Carpenters Local Union No. 1846 and
Harold E. Picou , An Individual . Case 15-CB-1001
April 21, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND J ENKINS
On December 11, 1969, Trial Examiner Max Rosen-
berg issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were
engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recom-
mending that they cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached
Trial Examiner's Decision Thereafter, the Respondents
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
a supporting brief The General Counsel filed a brief
in support of the Trial Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated-its powers in con-
nection with this case to a three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial
error was committed The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the exceptions, briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations
Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order
of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the
Respondents, The Carpenters District Council of New
Orleans and Vicinity and Carpenters Local Union No.
1846, their officers, agents, and representatives, shall
take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order
trict Council of New Orleans and,Vicinity and Carpenters
Local Union No 1846, herein called the Respondents
or the Council and the Local, respectively.' The plead-
ings raise the issues of whether Respondents violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, by certain conduct to be described
hereinafter. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties
waived oral argument. Briefs have been received from
the General Counsel and the Respondents, which have
been duly considered.
Upon the entire record made in this proceeding and
my observation of the witnesses, including their demean-
or while on the stand, I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
I THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Carpenter Brothers, Inc., herein called Carpenter,
a Texas corporation with its principal office and place
of business located in Dallas, Texas, is primarily engaged
in the building construction industry. As part of its
operations, Carpenter is engaged in the construction
of a Sears Roebuck and Company facility in Metairie.
Louisiana, and maintains an office in New Orleans,
Louisiana, where it performs the administrative duties
for that job This site is the only job of Carpenter
involved in this proceeding.
During the annual period material to this proceeding,
Carpenter purchased and caused to be transported direct-
ly to its Sears Roebuck and Company jobsite at Metairie,
Louisiana, materials and supplies valued in excess of
$50,000, which materials and supplies were received
directly from points located outside the State of Louisia-
na. The contract for the construction of this facility
exceeds $2 million.
The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find
that Carpenter is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Respondents are labor organizations within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
' In agreeing with the Trial Examiner's ultimate conclusion that
Respondents' failure to refer Picou, Foster, and Stewart to the Sears
job was discriminatorily motivated and violative of Section 8(b)(2) of
the Act, we find it unnecessary to consider the Trial Examiner's alterna-
tive finding that even if he accepted Respondents' explanation that
the above-named individuals had not timely presented themselves for
referral at the hiring table, the subsequent refusal to refer would still
have been unlawful
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MAx ROSENBERG, Trial Examiner: This proceeding,
with all parties represented, was heard before me in
New Orleans, Louisiana, on October 2, 1969, on com-
plaint of the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board and an answer of The Carpenters Dis-
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In his complaint, the General Counsel alleges that,
on or about May 25, 1969,2 Respondents violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by the conduct by Davy LaBorde,
the executive secretary of the Council and Business
Agent of the Local, which consisted of telling an employ-
ee-member during a conversation about job referrals
that the employee-member should "play ball" with
LaBorde in an intraunion election campaign and that
LaBorde would accordingly undertake reciprocal action
' The complaint which issued on August 26, 1969, is based upon
charges and amended charges which were filed on June 30, 1969,
and August 22, 1969, respectively, and served on July I. 1969, and
August 25, 1969, respectively
Y All dates herein fall in 1969
NLRB No. 11
50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and, on the same date, threatening said employee-mem-
ber with reprisals in his employment because the employ-
ee-member had voted against the position which LaBorde
had taken at a Local meeting. The complaint further
alleges that Respondents offended the provisions of that
Section on June 25 and July 3 by the conduct of Lester
"Pete" Lewis, a delegate to the Council and the assistant
business agent for the Local, in informing employee-
members that if the latter "played ball" with Lewis
in his bid for reelection to his Local office he would
see to it that they received job assignments and, if
they did not, they would make it rough on themselves,
and in telling an employee-member that by filing unfair
labor practice charges against Respondents, the employ-
ee-members were making it hard on themselves. Finally,
the complaint asserts that Respondents violated Section
8(b)(2) by causing Carpenter, and other employers
engaged in commerce, to refuse employment to Harold
E. Picou, Marlon K. Foster, and Elmer G. Stewart,
by discriminatorily refusing to refer these individuals
for work on equal terms with other employees for reasons
unconnected with their failure to tender or pay to
Respondents the periodic dues and initiation fees uni-
formly required as a condition of acquiring or maintaining
membership in those labor organizations. For their part,
Respondents generally deny the commission of any labor
practices banned by the statute
It is undisputed and I find that, during the times
material herein , Respondents were parties to a labor
agreement with the Associated General Contractors to
which Carpenter and other employers were bound, and
which contained an exclusive hiring hall clause whereby
employees were referred for employment with various
contractors, including Carpenter, through the Local's
union hall. In the operation of the hiring hall, it was
the Local's practice to conduct a "Roll Call" every
Monday morning at 9 a.m. Pursuant to this procedure,
unemployed members were required to appear at the
hall each Monday morning to register their names on
an "out-of-work" list and to be assigned a referral
number or, if already registered, to claim available work.
This out-of-work roster was maintained by the Local's
officials for making job assignments and the members
were allotted priorities on the list depending upon the
length of their unemployment. Thus, for example, a
member who had been out of work for the longest
period of time would be placed at the top of the roster
with a low referral number and be accorded the first
opportunity to bid on any available job opening. The
Local officers would then announce the work opportuni-
ties and call out the name of each man on the roster
in order of out-of-work seniority until all of the available
jobs were exhausted. The bidders thereupon proceeded'
to a table located at the front of the hall for presentation
of their membership cards to an official conducting the
"Roll Call," after which the official would transcribe
their names on a sheet of paper together with the work
assignments which they had claimed. The procedure
was completed when the transcribing officer provided
the bidders with a work order to present to the employ-
er's foreman or steward upon reporting for duty at
the project . In the event that a member "passed" or
declined to bid on the job openings available that day,
either because he wished to jockey for a better position
on the roster or sought to await a particular job in
the future , he nevertheless would retain his out-of-
work seniority on the list as well as his priority right
to select a job at subsequent "Roll Calls." If a member
accepted a referral , or failed to appear at a "Roll Call"
without justifiable excuse , his name would be stricken
from the roster.
In addition to the ' Monday morning "Roll Call," the
Local also scheduled out-of-work list calls on Monday
afternoons and twice daily during the balance of the
work week . The purpose for these "calls" was grounded
in the circumstance that contractors frequently tele-
phoned the hall for carpenters during the week. The
men who frequented the hall during these periods would
be permitted to bid for an assignment , again based
upon their ranking on the out -of-work roster. So far
as appears , no member suffered a reduction in out-
of-work seniority for failing to seek a referral in the
course of these "calls."
It is uncontroverted and I find that , pursuant to
Respondents ' constitution and bylaws , the Local is man-
dated to conduct an election every 3 years to select
its officers . Such an election was scheduled for June
14, and the incumbents who sought their return to major
office were Davy LaBorde , business agent , Pete Lewis,
assistant business agent, and Ray Sanchez, assistant
business agent . A Local member named Gerald (Jerry)
Palmisano provided LaBorde ' s opposition , and Palmisa-
no's candidacy drew the open and notorious support
of members Picou, Foster, and Stewart .' Sometime prior
to the election , LaBorde had arranged for a political
rally to enlist the membership's support of his "team"
or slate. Because he was unable to obtain suitable quar-
ters for this outing , LaBorde decided to poll the members
at a regular, monthly meeting set for June 9 to acquire
permission to utilize the Local' s hall in furtherance
of his political campaign.
Picou had been referred out of the Local 's hiring
hall for approximately 3 years . On May 19, he was
laid off from a construction job and he visited the
hall to seek other employment At the hall, he learned
that additional carpenters were needed at that site and
he requested LaBorde to inquire of the contractor wheth-
er he could return to work . When this inquiry proved
unsuccessful , LaBorde referred Picou , along with Stew-
art, to another project , a referral which these men
accepted on May 26 . However , Picou and Stewart quit
this job on May 28 or 29 , and both returned to the
hall to register their names on the out -of-work list and
receive a new referral number.
On Monday morning, June 9 , Picou appeared for
the "Roll Call" as well as the afternoon "call" without
3 Picou and Foster had been nominated for the office of delegate
to the council at a regular Local meeting held on May 12 The election
to these seats, as hereinafter noted, took place in mid-July However,
Picou was disqualified from running because he had not been a member
of the Local for a sufficient length of time Foster was defeated in
the balloting
CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW ORLEANS
successfully obtaining a referral Picou testified that
about an hour prior to the Local meeting scheduled
for that evening , he encountered a friend at the hall
who asked whether the former was gainfully employed
When Picou replied in the negative , the friend suggested
that he speak to LaBorde about openings for carpenters
on a floor covering job in the area Whereupon the
two men proceeded to LaBorde ' s office and Picou quer-
ied his business agent as to whether this flooring work
was available LaBorde acknowledged that jobs existed
and inquired if Picou was interested in such employment
Picou answered that he was According to Picou,
LaBorde then remarked , " I see you are getting pretty
friendly with Palmisano and his boys," a reference
to LaBorde ' s opponent in the impending election, and
asked, "What about that9" Picou rejoined that "them
guys are my friends Now I don 't think it has anything
to do with me going to work , does 0" LaBorde com-
mented, "you ought to play ball with us an we will
play ball with you " adding , "Tell you what Come
back and see me in the morning " Picou agreed to
do so and the discussion ended
Following this conversation , Picou attended the
Local's scheduled meeting Picou testified that, at the
outset of the session , LaBorde conducted a voice vote
of the membership to ascertain whether he should be
permitted to use the hall for electioneering purposes
This vote proved inclusive and, as a result, a standing
vote was conducted When the "nays" were polled,
Picou and Foster, who were also in the attendance
stood up and voted against allowing LaBorde to utilize
the hall It is Picou ' s further testimony that when
LaBorde, who assisted in making the headcount, noticed
Picou on his feet expressing his opposition to the out-
standing proposition , LaBorde pointed his finger at Picou
and remarked , " I will see about you in the morning "
After hearing this admonition , Picou failed to appear
at the hiring hall on the following day
Foster testified that shortly before he was nominated
for the post of delegate to the council on May 12,
he had a conversation with Assistant Business Agent
Lewis Lewis asked Foster why he had chosen to run
for delegate to the Council in opposition to the incumbent
slate Foster replied that he was disenchanted with the
Local's officialdom because the officers had proved
ineffective in carrying out their responsibilities Lewis
retorted , "Well, you know, we are in there , and you
ought to come along with us and help us " When Foster
stated that he did not feel so inclined , Lewis remarked,
"You all don't have a chance of winning Jerry [Palmisa-
no] is not going to win "
Foster further testified that he attended the Local
meeting of June 9 Sitting next to Picou in the front
row, he observed LaBorde conduct a standing vote
on the issue as to whether the latter should be allowed
to hold his rally in the hall While he and Picou stood
in opposition to granting LaBorde this permit, he was
nudged by Picou to look toward the rostrum where
he noticed LaBorde pointing at Picou and overheard
LaBorde mention something about "tomorrow "
51
The election for Local officers was run as scheduled
on June 14 LaBorde and his slate , which included
Lewis and Sanchez, were successful in the balloting
by a margin of 3 to I Due to a misinterpretation
of the Local's rules, and on advice of the International,
the election of delegates to the Council was rescheduled
for the middle of July
Gerald "Jerry' Palmisano testified that, about a week
following the June 14 election , Lewis called him into
an office at the Local' s hall and asked whether Palmisano
planned to contest a delegate ' s seat in the vote set
for July Palmisano opined that he probably would not
be a candidate Lewis then observed that it would be
beneficial for the Local if the incumbent Local officers
also served as delegates to the Council due to their
familiarity with the Local' s problems Palmisano readily
agreed At this juncture , Lewis queried whether any
of Palmisano ' s supporters in the previous election intend-
ed to challenge the incumbents ' for the delegate seats
and the latter responded that he "could not answer
for them " Lewis went on to state that "he'd appreciate
it if the men did not run due to the fact that it would
be for the good of the Union, that it would be good
if the members election should be on the District Council,
and that he would appreciate it if I would talk to
them and save the Union the expense of having the
election " Palmisano replied that "I will be glad to
talk to them ," at which point , and according to Palmisa-
no's testimony , Lewis stated, "You know, if we get
in for three years, we've got to get along for the next
few years, the election's over , let's cut the flighting
out and get along together, and we will be one big
happy family, if we play ball with each other, and
we play ball with each other " Palmisano further recount-
ed that, during the conversation , Lewis "was kind of
stressing the point actually [he] would like for me to
talk to my men not to run for District Council, and
considered helping us out if we would not run, see
that we would get jobs " When questioned again as
to whether Lewis promised that Palmisano ' s faction
would receive more work referrals if those members
did not stand for the election as delegate, Palmisano
replied, "He did not come out and say, you know,
he would see that we all would be working , there was
a lot of men complaining about being out of work
for quite a long time " Approximately a week later,
Lewis again approached Palmisano to inquire whether
he had polled his men about their possible candidacies
for the post of delegate Palmisano reported that he
had done so and that it was his opinion that "none
of them is going to run "
Continuing the narrative , and as chronicled herein-
after , Picou, Foster, and Stewart filed unfair labor prac-
tice charges against Respondents on June 30, alleging
that they had been discriminatorily denied job referrals
to a Carpenter project on that date in preference to
men whose names appeared below theirs on the out-
of-work list It is Palmisano ' s testimony that, after that
date , he learned from Picou of the men 's litigious actions
A week following the acquisition of this intelligence,
Palmisano visited the union hall in search of employment
52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and there he met Lewis . Lewis , summoned Palmisano
to the office and asked whether the latter was ^ aware
that this triumverate had lodged charges against Respond-
ents and whether he knew anything about them . Palmisa-
no feigned ignorance about this happenstance , whereup-
on Lewis questioned whether Palmisano "can talk them
out of it." Palmisano replied that he would "be glad
to help you out and talk to them about it ," after which
Lewis' advised Palmisano that " they're making it hard
on me because I gave those jobs out that morning,
and they ' are hurting the Local Union by filing charges
against the Union the way it is, and they are making
it tough on themselves ." Palmisano assured Lewis that
'he would speak with the men in an attempt . "to get
them to drop the charges ." With this, the conversation
terminated.
During his visit to the stand , Lewis acknowledged
that he engaged in a discussion with Palmisano about
whether Palmisano or any of the , latter ' s supporters
were gearing themselves to run for the office of delegate
to the council , and that Palmisano promised to. "speak
to his boys and see if he could get them to withdraw
from the election ." However , Lewis could not recall
the content of any other aspect of this conversation.
When queried on cross-examination as to whether.he
had spoken with Palmisano concerning the charges which
had been filed against the Respondents , the witness
again asserted a lack of recollection but, after being
pressed on the issue , he finally , admitted that "It's
possible that could have been mentioned ."4 Finally,
Lewis conceded that he informed his electoral opponents
that his slate rather than his challengers ' would prevail
in the election conducted on June 14.
I do not credit the testimony of Lewis, not only
because Palmisano impressed me as a sincere ' and trust-
worthy witness, but also because Lewis,, although
remembering certain elements of his conversations with
Palmisano , failed to deny the latter ' s testimony at its
salient junctures. Accordingly , I find that , on 'or about
June 21 , Lewis promised Palmisano that Respondents
would provide job referrals 'to him and his supporters
if they "played ball" with the incumbent Local officials
and dropped out of the race for elective office . Moreover,
I deem the negative inference reasonable and I find
that , by the foregoing statements , Lewis also thereby
uttered the veiled threat that Palmisano and his cohorts
would suffer the loss of job opportunities if they chal-
lenged the LaBorde -Lewis-Sanchez , ticket. Finally, I
credit the testimony of Palmisano and, find that, on
or about July 7, Lewis threatened Palmisano and his
supporters , namely, Picou , Foster , and Stewart, with
job reprisals unless they withdrew the unfair labor prac-
tice charges which they had lodged against Respondents
Stewart testified that, approximately 2 weeks after the unfair labor
practice charges had been filed, he, Picou and Foster were called
into Lewis' office where they were collectively offered referrals to
a project in Oklahoma by Lewis with the assurance that, if they
accepted this employment , their names would, continue to appear on
the out-of-work roster in their respective positions until the job was
completed Lewis then remarked that we should drop the charges,
that we didn't have a chance, we we ain't got a chance to win it "
on June 30. By this conduct, not only standing alone,
but also when' particularly-viewed against the backdrop
of the -other illegal acts and conduct found herein, I
conclude that the Respondents offended the provisions
of Section 8(b) (1) (A) of the Act.5
In his testimony, LaBorde recited that he was aware
that Picou, Foster, and Stewart were opposed to his
'candidacy for business agent of the Local and delegate
to the Council, and 'he recalled that a meeting had
been held on the evening of June 9 to poll the membership
in order to learn whether 'they favored his use of the
hall for a compaign rally, 'but he claimed he could
not, remember whether a voice or standing vote was
taken. When asked 'whether he had any conversation
with Picou in his office immediately prior to the meeting
regarding a referral to a flooring job'on the following
morning, LaBorde, denied that any such conversation
occurred that night. According to him, he conducted
the usual "Roll' Call" on the morning of June 9 and
announced that floor time men were needed on a project
in the New Orleans area. Picou made it known that
he was an experienced floor,man and LaBorde offered
him the job. Immediately following this proffer, Picou
declined the assignment because of the press of other
business and, did, not . return to another "Roll Call"
until a few weeks later when he again refused a referral
to that work. During his examination , LaBorde was
asked whether he had accused Picou that evening of
`getting friendly with Palmisano and his boys," and
whether he had invited Picou "to come see me in
the morning-about the' [ floor tile ] job, and if you play
ball with me, I will play ball with you." To this inquiry,
LaBorde replied,' "No, sir, that is not true, because
I never said that to anyone. I don't intend to play
that way. People get their jobs off the list when their
names are called. It is called in front of everyone.
They get the same crack at the job as anybody else."
At the outset of his testimony regarding the meeting
of June 9, LaBorde stoutly denied that he had fingered
'Picou when the latter arose to express opposition to
the use of the hall by LaBorde and his fellow candidates,
exclaiming that "In fact, I don't know if he voted
'or not." On his recall to the stand, LaBorde repeated
that he knew of Picou's, Foster's, and Stewart' s alle-
giance to Palmisano. 'He was again asked whether he
pointed at Picou and warned the latter that "I will
take care of you in the morning ." This time , LaBorde
altered his original stance and allowed as how "I might
have swung my hand, I might have swung my hand
around; but as. far'as pointing to anyone and saying
that' we would take care of them, this is not true,
sir, because if it was true I'm sure that the records
would show it." Despite his reference to "records,"
an apparent allusion to possible minutes of the meeting,
no such documents were produced in this proceeding
to support LaBorde' s testimonial denials or to explain
3 See International Union of Operating Engineers , Local Union No
150, AFL-CIO (Builders Association of Chicago), 165 NLRB 159, Local
872, International Longshoremen's Association , AFL-CIO (Atlantic &
Gulf Stevedores. Inc ), 163 NLRB 586, 591
CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW ORLEANS 53
the vagaries of his utterances . In short, I am not con-
vinced that LaBorde ' s evasive and vague testimony,
when contrasted with the straightforward testimony of
Picou and Foster and their persuasive demeanor, was
candidly rendered, and I credit Picou and Foster in
this regard.
Based upon the above -credited testimony, I am con-
vinced and find that , on June 9 , LaBorde offered a
job referral to Picou on the following day if the latter
"played ball" with LaBorde by supporting the incumbent
election slate ' in preference to Palmisano ' s, and that
LaBorde threatened Picou with job reprisals for having
voted against granting the business agent permission
to use the Local's hall for a campaign , meeting . I therefore
conclude that , by this conduct , Respondents violated
'Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.'
I turn next to a consideration of the General Counsel's
contention that Respondents practiced statutory discrimi-
nation against Picou , Foster , and, Stewart on June 30
by, refusing them to a project which Carpenter was
constructing for Sears Roebuck and Company.
As noted elsewhere , Picou and Stewart had been
dispatched from the Local hall on May 26 to a job
which they abandoned within a few days and ,, on May
28 or 29, they returned to the hall where they registered
their names on the out-of -work list and were assigned
numbers 6,513 and 6,514, respectively . Foster , who had
appended, his name to the roster in early May, was
carried on the roll as number 6,081. At 9 a.m. on
the morning of June 30, Picou, Foster, and Stewart,
being unemployed , appeared at the hall for the Monday
"Roll Call ." It is undisputed and, I - find that these
men reside in the vicinity of each other and, whenever
possible , they attempt to claim, jobs at the same project
in order to carpool together.'
Picou testified that during the "'Roll Call " on June
30 he was seated next to Foster , and Stewart occupied
a chair across the aisle from them . Assistant Business
Agent Lewis proceeded to read off the names of the
contractors which were in need of help . During this
process, Lewis announced that Carpenter , which was
constructing a Sears Roebuck and Company facility
in the area, had placed a call for 12 men for that
day. Upon hearing this, Foster turned to Picou and
suggested that they, as well as Stewart , should jointly
claim the work if the opportunity presented itself for
the dual reason that the three men could drive to work
together and that the job afforded overtime. Foster
communicated this plan of action to Stewart and the
latter heartily concurred . At this juncture , Lewis com-
menced to call the roll of registered members in the
order of ' their out-of-work seniority . Foster , whose name
was highly placed on the roster , decided to remain
mute when it was called in the hope that , by the time
ti Ibid -
' This practice was neither an unusual nor an untoward occurrence
within this Local , as evidenced by the fact that Picou and Stewart
were jointly referred to jobs on May 26, and by ,the further circumstance
that, as Lewis testimonially admitted, Foster rejected a job on which
he had bid at a Shamberg project in early July because he could
not share his transportation costs wth Picou and Stewart
the names of Picou and Stewart were reached, three
openings with Carpenter would be available for claim.
Picou further testified that, when Lewis read the
names of Picou and Stewart, they, along with Foster,
immediately walked to a desk in front of 'the hall which
was occupied by Assistant Business Agent Ray Sanchez
whose task , in accordance ' with the hall ' s procedures,
was to inspect the membership cards of the job claimants
and place their names on a sheet of paper, together
with the jobs claimed, for referral to a site . According
to Picou, when he and his cohorts approached the table
he told Sanchez, "Ray , I would like to ' go to the Sears
job. I want the Sears job." Sanchez looked up and
remarked , "This job ' is all filled up " Picou protested
that the jobs were ` indeed available , pointing out that
"I didn't count but eight men taking the job and there's
four more openings ." Sanchez repeated that the Sears'
complement had already been filled . Picou , Foster, and
Stewart walked over to Palmisano , who was standing
nearby, and Picou commented that "You know these
dirty things turned-us down -for this job over at Sears."
Palmisano counseled the men to return to Sanchez's
table and demand the' work . Acting as spokesman for
the three , and responding to Palmisano ' s advice, Picou
returned to the table and said, "Ray , I am demanding
this job. Now I want to go to Sears. The job is open
I know it is." Once more , Sanchez informed Picou
that there were no vacancies and,' after the "Roll Call"
was concluded, the former proceeded to his office where
he began compiling ' the work orders for the successful
job 'bidders . Picou , Foster , ' and Stewart persisted in
their quest and followed Sanchez into the office. Picou
placed his membership card on the desk and again
unsuccessfully sought a referral to Carpenter. He then
told Sanchez , "If there is any men going out below
me on the List . . . There is going to , be trouble.
Now I know some men come behind ' me that ' s taking
these jobs. I know the job was open when I come
up." Sanchez repeated his earlier reply that no positions
were available.
As Sanchez continued his chore of writing work refer-
rals for the job claimants, Picou stationed himself behind
Sanchez with pencil and paper in hand and memorialized
the names of the members who received referrals to
the Sears' site which appeared below his and Stewart's
on the out-of-work list . According to Picou , these num-
bered three : Armed with this-information, Picou ' decided
to visit the Regional Office of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board in New Orleans to file unfair " labor practice
charges. As he prepared to leave the hall, Lewis emerged
from his office and approached Picou. ' It is Picou's
testimony that Lewis told him 'that "I understand you
want to go to the Sears job." When Picou replied
in the affirmative , Lewis remarked that he believed
that another carpenter who was already employed on
the Sears' site by Carpenter had been improperly referred
to the project , and Lewis stated that he intended to
investigate the situation : with a view toward obtaining
this, work for ' Picou . ,Picou observed that, while this
arrangement might be beneficial to him , it would be
of little comfort to Foster and Stewart , and he added,
54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"Look , I went up and tried to get the job. You saw
me put my card on the table and Ray [Sanchez] told
me the job was, filled . Man, three or four men went
out behind me. What about that ? How does this go?"
Hearing this , Lewis shrugged his shoulders and walked
away.
After leaving the hall , Picou called at the Regional
Office where he filed charges alleging that the Council
had discriminatorily refused to refer him , Foster, and
Stewart to the Sears project .' During his interview with
the Board agent , Picou and the agent proceeded to
draft an affidavit recording the events which transpired
that morning . Because of Picou ' s uncertainty as to the
exact number and proper names of the men who had
lesser referral seniority than he and Stewart, and who
had been dispatched to the Sears ' site earlier in the
day, Picou returned to the hall to check the out-of-
work list at the request of the Board agent. When
he arrived , Assistant Business ?Agent Andry Highson
was in the process of drawing up a new out -of-work
list, for the following . week Picou asked Highson for
the list which had been utilized that morning and this
was turned over to Picou . He thereupon verified that
the names of the carpenters which he had copied from
Sanchez' work referral orders that, morning and which
appeared below ' the names of Picou and Stewart on
the roster . These individuals , with their referral numbers,
were F. J. Bourgeoise (6561), Nolton Bergeron,' Jr.
(6564), and A . C. LeBlanc (6579).'
The testimony of Foster and Stewart regarding the
events which ocurred at the morning "Roll Call" on
June 30 parallels and corroborates that of Picou.
Respondent ' s sole defense to the charges of statutory
discrimination launched against them for their failure
to refer Picou , Foster , and Stewart to the Sears ' project
is that no such jobs were available for them when
they made their claim for referrals . I find this defense
severely lacking in plausibility and credible support.,
Assistant Business Agent Sanchez testified that, at
the "Roll Call" on the morning of June 30 , his colleague
Lewis instructed the assembled members that, when
he called out their names, they were to proceed to
Sanchez ' table which was located at the front of the
Local hall, present their membership cards to the latter,
and indicate the jobs which they wished to claim. San-
chez thereupon wrote their names on a piece of paper
and, when the job quotas were filled , he brought this
to the attention of Lewis, who in turn so informed
the men . On direct examination , Sanchez could not
recollect how many jobs were available at Sears' site
on that morning . When pressed on cross-examination
regarding this subject Sanchez answered , " I wouldn't
give a number . I don ' t know exactly how many. I
couldn 't say, I would say around eight or nine roughly."
Respondents ' "Roll Call " roster which was employed
' On August 22, these charges were amended to add the Local
as a Respondent
s During his testimony , Picou pronounced this individual ' s name as
Tipalore However , it is clear from Respondent ' s June 30 out -of-work
list that he had reference to LeBlanc
on the morning of June 30, and which was introduced
into evidence , discloses that seven carpenters with great-
er out-of-work seniority than Picou , Foster , and Stewart,
were called and claimed Sears' jobs. That document
also shows that three additional carpenters , namely,
Bourgeoise , Bergeron , and LeBlanc were referred to
the project despite the fact that their names appear
between 14 and 18 notches below those of Picou and
Stewart , thus making , a total of 10 referrals to the
Carpenter-Sears project for that morning. It is therefore
patently clear and I find that , in spite of Sanchez'
assertion that only eight or nine openings existed, a
sufficient number of Sears' jobs were available for Picou,
Foster , and Stewart , as evidenced by Respondents' own
records, if they deigned to claim them.
Sanchez further testified that the "Roll Call" proceed-
ed in an orderly fashion that morning with no carpenter
blocking his view at the table and, when it was concluded,
he repaired to an inner office to write out the work
orders for the men who had claimed referrals. When
questioned on direct' examination as 'to whether the
three alleged discriminatees walked to his table during
"Roll Call " and deposited their membership cards with
him in order to claim a Sears' job, Sanchez initially
replied, "Not to my knowledge , no sir." When the
query was repeated , Sanchez stated that he neither
saw nor heard them while he was at his table in the
hall, and that he did not speak with them In Sanchez'
words, "It [the claims ' for Sears ' jobs] did not happen,
as far as 'I am concerned ." According to Sanchez,
he .was first approached by 'Picou and his two cohorts
when he retired to his inner office to execute the work
referrals for jobs already claimed by others . It is his
testimony that Picou and another member entered the
office and that Picou placed his card on Sanchez' table
which the latter took into his hands . He further related
that Picou "was doing all the talking , and he wanted
me to take and move these other fellows back because
he had a number that was lower than theirs." Sanchez
then "told [Picou] the job was filled , that I could not
do that . I didn ' t know how in the world I could do
anything like that. I told him the job was filled" because
Picou "did not come forward and bring his card up
at the time . . . when his name was called."
On cross-examination, when questioned as to whether
Picou, Foster , and Stewart did in fact approach his
table in the hall and claim the Sears' assignments, San-
chez at first replied " I did not say-well , to my knowl-
edge I did.not see them ." Finally, Sanchez acknowledged
that it was possible that the three men might have
ventured to his table to claim the work but that he
was too busy to notice them.
During his examination , Lewis was asked whether
he observed Picou , Foster , and Hall proff er their mem-
bership cards to Sanchez after Lewis had called out
their names. Lewis replied, "No sir . Well, I am looking
at the list." He then positively proclaimed that he had
made no such observation. Finally, he reported that
he could not recall how many members had been referred
to Carpenter on the morning of June 30 , and could
not recall having any conversations with the alleged
CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW ORLEANS
discriminatees on that day, although he did not specifical-
ly deny telling Picou as the latter was about to leave
for the Board Regional Office that Lewis would attempt
to obtain a job for him with Carpenter.
Clarence Arabie, a 4-year member of the Local,
attended the "Roll Call" on the morning of June 30.
Summoned as a witness on behalf of Respondents,
he testified on direct examination that Lewis called
out the names of the men on the out-of-work list and
Sanchez sat at t a desk in the hall and received the
claims for the available jobs When the call was conclud-
ed, Sanchez retreated to an inner office where he
embarked upon the chore of writing out referrals for
the men who had bid for the work. Despite the fact
that Arabie' s name was not on the "Roll Call" roster
that morning and that he therefore could not have
received a referral from Sanchez, for some unexplained
reason he nevertheless found his way into Sanchez'
inner sanctum where he observed Picou, Foster, and
Stewart arguing with Sanchez. Picou and Foster threw
their membership cards on the table in front of Sanchez
and "said that they wanted the job, their names were
on the list." Sanchez remarked that the Sears' jobs
had been filled, to which Picou responded, "my name
is up on the list." Sanchez repeated that the assignments
had already been made and that Picou and Foster should
have claimed the jobs during the call of the roster,
whereupon Picou, Foster, and Stewart left the hall.
On cross-examination, Arabie stated that the men
in the hall were very "boisterous" during the call. and
were acting like "a bunch of hogs." When asked whether
he saw Picou, Foster, and Stewart approach Sanchez'
table in the hall and place their cards upon it, Arabie
replied that he "didn't notice" this activity. He then
admitted that he could not positively report that these
men did not present their cards to Sanchez during the
call, simply relating, "I didn't notice them "
I credit Picou, Foster, and Stewart and accept their
testimonial version of the events which occurred on
the morning of June 30.10 These men concededly
appeared for the "Roll Call" and thus qualified them-
selves for job placement according to their position
on the existing out-of-work list. Although Arabie depict-
10 In a posthearing motion , Respondents ' counsel urged that the
Trial Examiner reopen the record for the reception of certain medical
records relating to the physical condition of Picou during the times
material to this proceeding which , according to counsel, would make
Picou's claim that he sought a referral to the Sears ' project on June
30, a sham Counsel appended to his motion a series of medical notations
from a physician which related that, between May 6 and August 4,
Picou suffered from an "Acute Lumbar Saccral Strain" for which
he collected hospital and other compensation I fail to perceive how
these documents , which are not urged as newly found , could adversely
affect the credible nature of Picou's testimony. It is undisputed, and
I have found , that Picou was referred out of the Local ' s hiring hall
in early May and was laid off on May 19 He again received a referral
on May 26 by Respondents ' officers Moreover , it is uncontroverted
and I have found that Picou was offered a job referral by Lewis
to a project in Oklahoma approximately, 2• weeks after he filed the
unfair labor practice charges on June 30 which triggered this proceeding
While Ptcou may have suffered from a physical disability between
May 6 and August 4, it obviously did not reach the proportions of
incapacity Nor, do I find, did it affect his credibility I therefore
deny Respondents motion
55
ed the scene as "boisterous," Sanchez confessed that
the proceeding was orderly and that he had a clear
view of all job claimants. However, Sanchez then admit-
ted that the men might have come to his table in the
hall without noticing them because of his detachment
with other business, and he was unable to bring himself
to deny that they had done so Nor could Arabie or
Lewis. I
Sanchez' testimony presents another anomoly. While
he estimated that eight or nine referrals were made
to the Sears' project on the morning of June 30, Respond-
ents own "Roll Call" list which he maintained that
day unequivocally demonstrates that there were ten
positions available on the roster. That document further
shows that three jobs were available at the site when
Picou, Foster, and Stewart came within reach of claiming
them. At the hearing, Respondents emphasized that
once an eligible bidder makes his claim for a job at
Sanchez' table, that, job thereafter becomes closed to
more senior members because of the administrative
difficulties encountered in recalling men who have
already been sent to the projects. I am willing to accept
Respondents' explanation and persuance of this protocol.
However, assuming, as Respondents apparently would
have me believe, that Picou, Foster, and Stewart were
derelict in their task of claiming the three assignments
by failing timely to approach Sanchez' table in the
hall, I fail to perceive how, Respondents' procedures
would have been offended or how the three men could
have disentitled themselves for employment on this occa-
sion. It is undisputed that, following the "Roll Call,"
Picou, Foster, and Stewart followed Sanchez into his
office to protest their failure to obtain referrals at the
very time when Sanchez was in the act' of writing
out his referral work orders. These totaled approximately
32 various employers, including Carpenter-Sears, and
there is no probative evidence advanced by Respondents
on this record to buoy any contention that Bourgeoise,
Bergeron, or LeBlanc, whose names were read long
after those of the alleged discriminatees, had already
begun their trek to the Sears' construction project. More-
over, there is nothing in the record which even remotely
suggests that, when Respondents' officials, such as San-
chez, failed to record a rightful job-claim because of
their inattention or the tumult in' the hiring hall, the
claimant is thereafter foreclosed from pressing his claim
prior to the dispatch of a more junior man' to a work
assignment.
Picou, Foster, and Stewart were not playing strange
games on Respondents ' ballfield on the morning of June
30. Respondents' witnesses acknowledged that carpen-
ter-members frequently made it a practice as shapeups
to lay in wait for jobs which promised lengthy employ-
ment and car-pool opportunities. The three men had
been unemployed for several weeks. The Sears' project
was laden with these 'possibilities. In my opinion, it
strains credulity to believe that, with this chance await-
ing, these men would have eschewed it through lack
of diligence.
I find that, on June 30, Picou, Foster, and Stewart
made "Roll Call" at the appointed time and decided
56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to bid for three jobs at 'the Sears' project operated
by Carpenter. Foster, who possessed a high-priority
position on the out-of-work list, counselled with Picou
and Stewart, and the men entered into a verbal compact
to file a joint 'claim for work assignments to the Sears'
installation because it offered attractive compensations
I further find that Foster, in pursuit of the collective
goal, temporarily' waived his right to bid for a Sears'
job and that, when Lewis tolled 'the names of Picou
and Stewart, who were saddled on the list, all 'three
members advanced to the table which Sanchez occupied
in the hall and deposited their membership cards, pur-
suant to Respondents prescribed hiring hall rules, and
made claim to.three available referrals to Sears. I also
find that, although vacancies existed for these men,
Sanchez refused to assign them to these positions, well
knowing that they desired and were administratively
deserving of these allocations. I also find that, when
Sanchez rejected their bids, the men pursued Sanchez
to his office where they repeated their plea of entitlement
to referrals to the Carpenter assignment, which again
was denied to them.
It is now horn-book law that a labor organization
which operates an exclusive hiring hall by prearrange-
ment with contracting or acquiescent employers must
do so in such a manner as to insure that all members
(and, of course, nonmembers) are treated equally, fairly,
and impartially when they search for work through
that establishment." Pique suffered by union officers
due to a challenge by dissident members to unseat
the incumbents from their official thrones affords no
license for retribution in the selection of members for
available work assignments or, as otherwise phrased,
for the "curtailment of job rights."12
I have heretofore found that Respondents' officers
knew that Picou, Foster, and Stewart openly espoused
the candidacy of Palmisano, for, business agent of the
Local in opposition to Davy LaBorde in the election
which was conducted on June 14. I have also found
that LaBorde, at a Local meeting held on June 9, first
promised Picou a job referral on the following day.
if he "played ball" with the incumbent slate in the
forthcoming election, and then informed his constituent
that the well of work had run dry when LaBorde became
aware of Picou's, as well as, Foster's and Stewart's,
opposition to his use of the Local hall for intraunion
political purposes. LaBorde and his slate of candidates
further knew, prior to June 30, that Picou and Foster
had thrown their their hats into the ring for the office
of delegate to the Council, a gesture which LaBorde
and Lewis sought to forestall by soliciting Palmisano's
aid in an attempt to dissuade these men from running
for that post in the election scheduled for the middle
of July. While Palmisano assured Lewi's that he would
make every effort to curb the political tendencies of
his supporters in the July balloting for delegate positions,
" Local 357, Teamsters [Los-Angeles Seattle Motor Express] v
NLRB,365US 667
" A Cestone Company, 118 NLRB 669, enfd 254 F 2d 216 (C A
8)
that assurance had not reached fruition on June 30,
as demonstrated by the fact that Foster actually stood
for election and Picou was disqualified. Moreover, and
as I have heretofore found, Respondents' motivation
in depriving Picou, Foster, and Stewart of job referrals
to the Sears' project' is' further portrayed by Lewis'
statement to Palmisano after the June 14 election, but
prior to June 30, that Respondents' officers would give
preferential treatment to Palmisano's backers if he stayed
their hands in the delegate contest.
After a thoughtful assessment of all the facts spread
upon the record in this proceeding, I am convinced
and find that Picou, Foster, and Stewart were denied
referrals by Respondents to the Carpenter-Sears project
on June 30, not because they had been lax in making
a timely bid for that work, but because Respondents
sought to punish them for pursuing a course in opposition
to the intraunion political ambitions of the incumbent
officers This conduct most assuredly intruded upon
the rights of these members guaranteed by the statute,
and I conclude that Respondents thereby offended the
provisions of Section 8(b)(2) 13
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondents set forth in section
III, above, occurring in connection with the operations
of the Employer described in section 1, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
V THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
13 At the hearing, Respondent Council claimed that it was not properly
joined as a party to this proceeding because it bore no direct responsibility
for the conduct of LaBorde, Lewis, or Sanchez in their dealings with,
Picou, Foster, Stewart, and Palmisano It therefore moved for severance
of its name from the pleadings in this case I deny this motion One
of the prime causes for the job discrimination which Picou, Foster,
and Stewart received was bottomed on the fact that they chose to
stand in opposition to the incumbent leadership who not only occupied
official positions in the Local, but who were also delegates to the
Council (in' LaBorde's case, he was also executive secretary of that
body) Furthermore, the Council negotiated and signed the agreement
with the Associated General Contractors which was creative of the
exclusive hiring hall arrangement pursuant to which the political challeng-
ers sought and were denied job referrals Moreover, the Council, under
said contract, maintains a tight reign over its member Locals by virtue'
of its control over such matters as the administration of trust funds,
apprentice and training funds , and the health and welfare plan Addition-
ally, the contract recites that nothing therein "shall be construed as
releasing the Council from any joint liability that it may have with
any affiliated Local Union " Based upon the foregoing , I am convinced
and find that there is legal warrant for the conclusion that the Council
should be held jointly and severally liable with the Local for the
unfair labor practices committed herein See Local Union No 26,
Sheet Metal Workers' (Reno Employers Council), 168 NLRB 893
CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF NEW ORLEANS
I have found that Respondents attempted to and did
cause Carpenter to refuse to employ Harold E Picou
Marlon K Foster, and Elmer G Stewart, by discrimina-
torily declining to refer them for jobs with said employer
on equal terms with other employees by reason of
their political opposition to incumbent Local officials
or because they otherwise engaged in concerted, protect
activities, all in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
To right this wrong, I shall order Respondents to notify
Carpenter, in writing, that they have no objections to
the employment of these individuals, with a copy of
such notice provided to Picou, Foster, and Stewart
I shall also order Respondents to make Picou, Foster,
and Stewart whole for any loss of pay which they
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination prac-
ticed against them Loss of earnings shall be computed
in the manner established by the Board in F W Wool-
worth Co , 90 NLRB 289, with interest to be accorded
in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating
Co , 138 NLRB 716
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions, and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
2 The Carpenters District Council of New Orleans
and Vicinity and Carpenters Local Union No 1846
are labor organizations within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act '
3 By promising job referrals to employee-members
in the event said employee-members supported the candi-
dacy of Respondents' incumbent officials in an intra-
union election, threatening employee-members with loss
of job opportunities if they challenged the incumbent
officials at the polls in such an election, threatening
employee-members with job reprisals for assuming posi-
tions on intraunion matters in opposition to those shared
by the incumbent officials, and, threatening employee-
members with the loss of work assignment unless they
withdrew unfair labor practice charges filed against
Respondents, the Respondents have restrained and
coerced employee-members in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby violated
Section 8(b)(1)(A)
4 By causing and attempting to cause the Employer
to refuse employment to Harold E Picou, Marlon K
Foster, and Elmer G Stewart, by discriminatorily refus
ing to refer these men for work on equal terms with
other employees for reasons unrelated to their failure
to tender or pay to Respondents the periodic dues and
initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquir-
ing or maintaining membership in those labor organiza-
tions, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(2) of the Act
5 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act
RECOMMENDED ORDER
57
Upon the foregoing fipdings of fact and conclusions
of law and the entire record in this case, and pursuant
to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, I recommend that Respondent, The Carpen-
ters District Council of New Orleans and Vicinity, and
Respondent, Carpenters Local Union No 1846, of New
Orleans, Louisiana, their officers, representatives, and
agents, shall
I Cease and desist from
(a) Promising job referrals to employee-members pro-
vided the employee-members support the candidacy of
Respondents' incumbent officials in intraunion elections
(b) Threatening employee-members with loss of job
opportunities if they challenge incumbent officials in
intraunion elections
(c) Threatening employee-members with job reprisals
for taking positions on intraunion matters contrary to
those shared by incumbent officials
(d) Threatening employee-members with loss of work
assignments unless they withdraw unfair labor practice
charges filed against Respondents
(e) Causing or attempting to cause Carpenter Broth-
ers, Inc , or any other employer engaged in commerce,
to refuse to employ Harold E Picou, Marlon K Foster,
and Elmer G Stewart, by discriminatorily declining
to refer said employee-members on equal terms with
other employees because of their political opposition
to Respondents' incumbent officials or for otherwise
engaging in concerted, protected activities in violation
of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act
s
(f) In any other manner restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action which I find
is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Post at their offices and meeting halls, in conspicu-
ous places, where notices to members are customarily
posted, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix "14 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for Region 15, after being duly signed
by Respondents' officer and representative, Davy P
LaBorde, shall be posted immediately upon receipt there-
of and thaintained for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter Reasonable steps shall be taken to insure
that said notices are not altbred, defaced or coveied
by any other material
(b) Make whole Harold E Picou, Marlon K Foster,
and Elmer G Stewart for any loss of pay which they
14 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board
the findings conclusions recommendations and Recommended Order
herein shall as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations
be adopted by the Board and become its findings conclusions and
order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
In the event that the Board s Order is enforced by a judgment of
a United States Court of Appeals the words in the notice reading Posted
by Order of the National Labor Relations Board shall be changed
to read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court
of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National I abor Relations Board
58 DECISIO\S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
may have suffered by reason of the discrimination prac-
ticed against them Loss of earnings shall be computed
in the manner set forth in the section of the Decision
entitled "The Remedy "
(c) Notify Carpenter Brothers, Inc , in writing, that
Respondents have no objections to the employment
of Picou, Foster, and Stewart, with copies of said notices
to be provided to these individuals
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 15, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of receipt of
this Decision, what steps the Respondents have taken
to comply therewith 11
15 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the
Board this provision shall be modified to read Notify the Regional
Director in writing within 10 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT promise job referrals to our mem-
bers in order to get them to support our incumbent
officials as candidates in our elections
WE WILL NOT threaten our members with loss
of job opportunities if they oppose our incumbent
officers in our elections
WE WILL NOT threaten our members with job
reprisals if they take a position against our officials
in intraunion matters
WE WILL NOT threaten our members with loss
of job referrals unless they withdraw unfair labor
practice charges filed with the National Labor Rela-
tions Board against us
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Carpenter
Brothers, Inc , or any other employer, to refuse
to hire Harold E Picou, Marlon K Foster, or
Elmer G Stewart, by discriminatorily refusing to
refer them on equal terms with other members
because of their political opposition to our incum
bent officers or for engaging in activities protected
by the National Labor Relations Act
WE WILL pay Harold E Picou, Marlon K Foster,
and Elmer G Stewart, and wages which they may
have lost because we refused to refer them to
the Carpenter Brothers, Inc project
WE WILL notify Carpenter Brothers, Inc , in writ-
ing, that we have no objections to the employment
of Harold E Picou, Marlon K Foster, and Elmer
G Stewart, and WE WILL provide copies of this
notice to them
Dated By
THE CARPENTERS
DISTRICT COUNCIL
OF NEW ORLEANS
AND VICINITY AND
CARPENTERS LOCAL
UNION No 1846
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material
Any questions concerning this Notice or compliance
with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's
Office, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola
Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113, Telephone
527-6391